Ad description
A webpage on the Samsung website, seen on 14 July 2024, featured text which stated, “Claim 6 months free Persil detergent when you buy a Samsung 11kg ecobubble washing machine”, alongside an image of a washing machine containing stuffed animal toys.
Further text stated, “Step 1 Purchase a qualifying Samsung 11kg Washing Machine between 15th May 2024 and 31st January 2025. Step 2 submit your claim using your receipt. Step 3 use the coupon within 90 days from the day of issue in a participating retailer to receive your free product”.
Terms and conditions located at the bottom of the webpage stated, “Using this coupon, there are three products available to redeem: a. 55W Persil Wonder Wash Liquid (Speed Clean Non-Bio, Odour Defy, Ultra Care) for a value of £7.00 discounted off the product or via cashback; b. 48W Capsules (Bio, Non-Bio, Colour) for the value of £10.50 cashback; c. 46W Ultimate Liquid (Touch of Comfort, Active Clean, Fresh and Mild) for a value of £7.50 discounted off the product or via cashback.”
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading and the promotion breached the Code.
Response
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd confirmed that they had a commercial relationship with Persil and that Persil had approved all of their promotional marketing materials. They also confirmed that Persil had provided the terms and conditions for the promotion.
Before the promotion started, they believed that the vouchers would be sufficient to cover the total cost of the products and reiterated that the use of the word “free” had been approved by Persil. They explained that, upon notification of the complaint, Persil had confirmed that, since retailers were free to set their own prices, in some cases the coupon value, which was set based on the products’ promotional Recommended Retail Price (RRP) would be less than the retail price. After notification of the complaint, they agreed with Persil to increase the value of the voucher which would mean most of the redeemable products were “free” and, in addition, Samsung would amend the ad to remove the term “free”.
Samsung also agreed, other than the short terms and conditions located at the bottom of the webpage, the ad did not make clear that consumers would have to pay for one of the products upfront before receiving cashback. They also said that Persil had outlined their intention to change the mechanic of the promotion to remove the coupon, and instead, all participants would be able to claim cashback up to the RRP of the detergent products. When that change was made, they said they would amend the ad to make it clear to participants that they would have to claim cashback for the products.
Samsung believed that the picture of the three Persil products included within the ad suggested to participants that it was possible to redeem all three products. They also believed that it was clear that all three products were available as part of the promotion throughout the customer journey of making a claim for the products. However, because of the complaint, they agreed to make that clearer within the ad. They therefore planned to update the ad to make it clear that participants would be eligible to redeem cashback for all three products.
Samsung also referred to the full terms and conditions of the promotion, and highlighted that they made clear that only 3,000 vouchers were available for each of the three products and that participants only had 20 minutes after they clicked the link to redeem the coupon. Despite that, they agreed that those significant conditions could have been made clearer in the ad.
They confirmed that they would make it clear that there were only 3,000 coupons available. However, because the mechanic of the promotion was changing, and it would no longer rely on coupons, they said it would not be necessary to state the 20-minute stipulation.
Samsung confirmed that they had not received any other complaints directly in relation to this ad or promotion.
Unilever UK Ltd t/a Persil confirmed that they had a commercial relationship with Samsung. They agreed to the launch of the digital coupon campaign in collaboration with Samsung, whereby consumers who purchased a Samsung washing machine of at least 11 kg could claim a digital coupon for the 55W Persil Wonder Wash, 48W Persil Capsules and the 46W Persil Ultimate Liquid. They stated that the promotion was scheduled to run from 15 May 2024 until 31 January 2025, or until all of the coupons had been redeemed.
Persil explained the promotional mechanic in more depth. They said that the digital coupons were administered via a third party, and that there were two options for participants in the promotion; namely, that they could use the coupon to pay for the products up to the value described in the terms and conditions; or purchase the products and then claim cashback up to the value described in the terms and conditions. They stated that there were 3,000 coupons available for redemption across the UK for each of the three products. They did not, however, expect to run out of coupons before the end of the promotional period.
They explained that the limit of 3,000 coupons was calculated as an estimate of the total number of consumers likely to redeem the coupons. It was not intended to be a limited promotion whereby there were many consumers unable to redeem the coupons who had wished to. For that reason, they said they did not include the coupon restriction within the ad, but as a result of the complaint, intended to add this condition to the abridged terms and conditions viewable within the ad.
Persil said that the cashback option had been offered for two reasons; specifically, because some retailers were not able to manage digital coupons, and because there was a limit to the value which could be redeemed by a digital coupon. Because of that, the Persil 48W Capsules were available on a cashback only basis. They confirmed that the money-off coupon option was available for the other two products included in the promotion. They highlighted that this information was explicitly referenced in the terms and conditions of the promotion as a significant condition.
With regards to the use of “free” within the ad, Persil said that retailers were able to establish their own retail prices. The promotional terms and conditions included a reference to the maximum value of the coupon or cashback that Persil would provide and a statement clarifying that where the price was greater the difference would have to be covered by the consumer. Notwithstanding that, they acknowledged that the value of the coupons offered was not equivalent to the relevant RRP for each of the products. They confirmed that the word “free” would be removed from all relevant marketing communications.
Persil said that both the short- and long-form terms and conditions referenced all three Persil products, and that it was clear, once the participant registered for the coupon, that it was possible to redeem all three products. They explained that those participants would receive a text message with a link to the coupon code for all three products. They reiterated that participants would receive clear communication that they could use the voucher against all three products. Persil also explained the stipulation that the coupons must be used within 20 minutes after activation was listed in the full terms and conditions. They also supplied a copy of a digital coupon which they said made clear that the participants should not click the coupon until they are ready to checkout.
They confirmed that they had received no further complaints directly in relation to this ad or promotion.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code made clear that marketing communications must not describe a product as "free” if the consumer had to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding and collecting, or paying for delivery, of the item. Furthermore, the Code stated that all marketing communications referring to promotions must state all applicable significant conditions where their omission was likely to mislead. Significant conditions may, depending on the circumstances, include information about how to participate and technological or other restrictions. The Code also stated promoters must not encourage consumers to make a purchase or series of purchases as a precondition to applying for promotional items if the number of those items is limited, unless the limitation is made sufficiently clear at each stage for them to accurately to assess whether participation is worthwhile.
The ASA welcomed the assurances from both advertisers that they would amend the ad to comply with the CAP Code. The ad stated, “Claim 6 months Free Persil detergent” in large font, and immediately underneath that, smaller text continued “when you buy a Samsung 11kg ecobubble washing machine”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand that, upon purchase of the specified Samsung washing machine, they would receive a six-month supply of Persil detergent. On that basis, we considered that consumers would understand that they would not have to pay towards the cost of the detergent in order to redeem the promotional offer, nor would they have to pay the cost of the detergent upfront and then claim the money back at a later date.
We considered that impression was furthered by the three steps listed underneath the promotion, which were necessary for consumers to fulfil in order to redeem the detergent. The steps outlined that participants must “purchase a qualifying Samsung 11kg Washing Machine”, “submit your claim using your receipt” and then “use the coupon within 90 days from the day of issue in a participating retailer to receive your free product”. We considered consumers would interpret that to mean, in return for the coupon, they would be able to receive the detergent at no cost to themselves.In addition, we noted that as part of the promotion there was no reference to a limit or restriction on the number of coupons available. Consequently, we considered that participants would assume that, on the condition that they purchased an eligible Samsung washing machine, they would be able to take part in the promotion and redeem the detergent.
The coupon for the 55W Persil Wonder Wash Liquid amounted to £7.00, the 48W Capsules amounted to £10.50 and 46W Ultimate amounted to £7.50. However, we understood that the RRP of each product was higher than the value of the corresponding coupon. As such, we considered it was very likely that consumers would be unable to purchase the three products available to redeem using the coupon solely. In the case of the complainant, we noted that there was a £3, £1 and £1.50 price discrepancy across the three products respectively. We considered that the coupons did not, therefore, necessarily allow participants to redeem the detergent for free, at no cost to themselves.
Furthermore, we understood that it was necessary for participants to purchase one of the products, the 48W Capsules, upfront. After purchase, participants could then apply for cashback up to the value of the coupon to be credited back to their account. We considered that was not made clear in the ad, and that consumers would be unaware that a specific product could only be purchased via a cashback mechanism. We acknowledged that the short-form terms and conditions stated, “48W Capsules (Bio, Non-Bio, Colour) for the value of £10.50 cashback”. However, we considered that the font used was small, and the text was located at the very bottom of the webpage, and as such, was likely to be missed by consumers. In any case, we considered that the text contradicted, rather than clarified, the overall impression of the ad – in particular, the text “use the coupon within 90 days from the day of issue in participating retailers to receive your free product”.
We also understood that each product was limited to a total of 3,000 redemptions. We noted that neither the main copy of the ad nor the short-form terms and conditions at the bottom of the ad, made reference to the coupon availability. We therefore considered that participants did not have the opportunity to assess whether or not participation was worthwhile, since they would have purchased a qualifying washing machine without knowing if the 3,000-coupon limit per product had been reached. Whilst we understood that Persil had estimated the number of coupons likely to be redeemed and did not believe that the coupons would run out before the end of the promotion, we considered that, by its nature, limiting the number of redemptions meant it was possible that participants who had purchased one of the relevant Samsung washing machines would not be able to redeem the promotional items. Notwithstanding that, the Code prohibited encouraging participants to make a purchase as a precondition to applying for promotional items, if the number of those items were limited, unless the limitation was made sufficiently clear.
Moreover, we understood that, once activated, the coupons would no longer be valid after 20 minutes, and we considered that represented a significant condition which was likely to affect a consumer’s understanding about how to participate in the promotion. Similarly, we noted that this was not mentioned in either the main part of the ad nor the short-form terms and conditions at the bottom of the page. We acknowledged that the stipulation was referenced in the full terms and conditions, which were accessible via a link within the ad. Despite that, we considered, given the information was a significant condition, the information should have been presented clearly in the ad itself to ensure consumers were able to understand how to participate in the promotion.
Because the ad misleadingly stated that, participants would receive a free promotional item when that was not the case; it did not make clear that one of the products had to be purchased upfront or that there was a limited number of coupons available; and omitted a significant condition, we concluded that the ad was misleading and the promotion breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.23 (Free), and 8.12 and 8.17 (Promotional marketing).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd and Unilever UK Ltd t/a Persil to ensure that they did not describe a promotional item as “free”, if consumers had to pay towards the cost of purchasing those items, and to make clear if those promotional items would have to be purchased upfront before being redeemed via a cashback mechanism. Furthermore, they should not encourage consumers to make a purchase or series of purchases as a precondition to applying for promotional items if the number of those items is limited, unless the limitation is made sufficiently clear at each stage for the consumer to assess accurately whether or not participation was worthwhile. We also told them to ensure that their future marketing communications referring to promotions included all significant conditions, where the omission of those conditions was likely to mislead.
